Appeal Agaisnt Imprisonment in District Court Good

Download as doc, pdf, or txt
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 5

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, ATTOCK

In the matter of:

1. Muhammad Zubair
2. Amir Hamza both sons of Muhammad Iqbal Caste Bajwa,
resident of H. No. 246/ NW, Asghar Mall Scheme, P.S Banni,
Rawalpindi.
…Appellants
Versus
The State …Respondent

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 408 Cr.P.C AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT


DATED 28-02-2007 PASSED BY MR. MEHR MUHAMMAD IQBAL
HARRAL, MAGISTRATE SECTION 30, FATEH JANG, DISTRICT
ATTOCK WHEREBY THE APPELALNTS WERE CONVICTED UNDER
SECTION 395 PPC FOR FIVE YEARS R.I EACH ALONG WITH FINE
OF RUPEES 50,000/- EACH IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE
TO FURTHER UNDERGO 6 MONTHS S.I WITH THE BENEFIT
UNDER SECTION 382-B Cr.P.C.

Respectfully Sheweth,

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:-

1. That the case FIR No. 116 dated 03-05-04 Under Section 395/412
PPC P.S FATEH JANG was registered against the appellants in which
it was alleged by the complainant that on 03-05-2004, at about 1
pm, appellants alongwith co accused of young ages came inside
the house, two of them were armed with 32 Bore Pistols, the
identification of the accused were also given by the complainant in
the FIR. Complainant alleged the decoity of Rs. 15,000/-, a Tape
Recorder, a TV Set and 8 Bangles of Gold. Complainant has also
given the Carry Van number, in which the accused allegedly fled
away from the spot.

2. That the local police reached at the spot and started chasing the
accused in the official vehicle and resultantly at 2 pm, police
succeeded to capture appellants alongwith three other co accused.
However, one of the accused succeeded to disappear at the time of
search.
3. That the challan was submitted and appellants were charges
sheeted for offence U S 395/412 PPC, which they pleaded not
guilty. 9 PWs were recorded, statement under section 342 Cr.P.C
was also recorded, however, appellants opted not to produce any
defence evidence or to make their statements on oath.

4. That the learned trial court after the trial, convicted the appellants
under section 395 PPC as mentioned above.

5. That the appellants feeling aggrieved, file the instant appeal inter
alia on the following grounds:

GROUNDS

i. That the impugned judgment is against facts of the


case and the same is not sustainable in the eye of
law.

ii. That appellant No. 2 was a juvenile at the time of


incident but he was denied his right to be tried under
the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000.

iii. That the recovery planted on the appellants of 32


Bore Rivalwer and of Rs. 1000/- is speaking at the
volume that the appellants were made a scapegoat
in the instant case just to show the fake efficiency by
the local police.

iv. That it is pertinent to mention here that both the


appellants are real brothers and appellant Amir
Hamza was a school going boy at the time of
occurrence aged about 16 years, while the other
appellant is a patient of T.B, who remained
hospitalized, while he was in Jail.
v. That the story of the prosecution is a highly doubtful
and seems to be a concocted and figment of
imaginations.

vi. That the time of occurrence, the time of report and


the time of so called arrest of the appellants is
sufficient to reach at the conclusion that whole story
is not believable and not sustainable in the eye of
law.

vii. That the evidence given by the PWs is full of


contradictions and does not leads a judicious mind
towards conviction. The statement of the witnesses
are not consistent with each other, which cannot be
over looked.

viii. That the story of the FIR, the evidence of the PWs
and investigation conducted in a manner all rendered
the prosecution story towards doubt and the benefit
of same can only be extended in the favour of
appellants.

ix. That the local police also involved the appellants in


another case in FIR No. 69 dated 19-03-2004, under
section 392 PPC, but the learned Magistrate on 07-
02-2007 acquitted the appellants on the basis of
benefit of doubt.

x. That the local police also involved the petitioner in


another case FIR No. 81 dated 30-04-2004 under
section 459 PPC P.S Fatehjang, in which the
petitioner is also acquitted by the order of learned
Magistrate Section 30 of Fateh Jang (Attock) dated
28-02-2007.
xi. That the sentence awarded to the accused is
extremely harsh and unwarranted.

xii. That bare perusal of the judgment it transpired that


the order of the learned trial judge is not a speaking
one.

xiii. That the judgment passed by the learned trial judge


is against the law, facts and dictums laid down by the
judicial hierarchy.

xiv. That the impugned judgment has resulted into


miscarriage of justice.

xv. That the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its


case beyond the shadow of doubt against the
appellant.

xvi. That the conviction and sentence is not maintainable


from the evidence on record.

xvii. That apart from other grounds, the punishment of


fine of Rs. 50,000/- is too harsh for the innocent and
poor appellants.

In view of above, it is most humbly prayed that by


accepting the instant appeal impugned order dated 28-02-2007
may kindly be set-aside and appellants may be acquitted in the
interest of justice.

Appellants
Through

(Rana Zahid Ali)


Advocate High Court,
Rawalpindi

Certificate:-
As per instruction received from the close relative of the petitioner this
is the first appeal ever moved before this Honourable Court.

Counsel

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy